Issue 04/00 22 February 2000 International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 1998 by Gordon C. Barclay & Cynthia Tavares Main points Absolute comparisons between recorded crime levels in countries may be misleading; therefore, only comparisons of trends are normally made in this Bulletin. Information collected for 1998 from 29 countries indicated that: • Recorded crime rose on average by 5% compared with a fall of 1% in England & Wales. • England & Wales had one of the lowest homicide rates in Western Europe and London had a below average rate. • Violent crime recorded by the police rose by 2% on average compared with a fall of 6 % in England & Wales. • Domestic burglaries recorded by the police fell by 1% on average compared with a fall of 6% in England & Wales. • Thefts of motor vehicles recorded by the police rose by 3% on average compared with a fall of 2% in England & Wales. • Drug trafficking offences recorded by the police rose by 7% on average compared with a 9% fall in England & Wales. • A study by the Council of Europe covering 9 European countries (including all parts of the United Kingdom) for selected offences, showed that, in 1995, England & Wales (after Portugal) tended to sentence offenders to the longest terms of imprisonment. However, the use of custody as a sentencing option in England & Wales was found to be similar to that in the majority of the other countries. • The prison population rate in England & Wales (at 126 prisoners per 100,000 general population in 1998) was the highest per capita rate in Western Europe (apart from Portugal (144)). This rate was, however, well below that found in the USA (668) and some Eastern European countries (Russia (690) and the Czech Republic (215)). Note: All the tables in this Bulletin are downloadable as Excel spreadsheets from the RDS Website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/publf.htm.
24
Embed
International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Issue 04/00 22 February 2000
International comparisons of criminal justice statistics1998
by Gordon C. Barclay & Cynthia Tavares
Main points
Absolute comparisons between recorded crime levels in countries may be misleading; therefore,only comparisons of trends are normally made in this Bulletin.
Information collected for 1998 from 29 countries indicated that:
• Recorded crime rose on average by 5%compared with a fall of 1% in England &Wales.
• England & Wales had one of the lowesthomicide rates in Western Europe andLondon had a below average rate.
• Violent crime recorded by the police roseby 2% on average compared with a fall of6 % in England & Wales.
• Domestic burglaries recorded by thepolice fell by 1% on average comparedwith a fall of 6% in England & Wales.
• Thefts of motor vehicles recorded by thepolice rose by 3% on average comparedwith a fall of 2% in England & Wales.
• Drug trafficking offences recorded by thepolice rose by 7% on average comparedwith a 9% fall in England & Wales.
• A study by the Council of Europe covering9 European countries (including all partsof the United Kingdom) for selectedoffences, showed that, in 1995, England &Wales (after Portugal) tended to sentenceoffenders to the longest terms ofimprisonment. However, the use ofcustody as a sentencing option in England& Wales was found to be similar to that inthe majority of the other countries.
• The prison population rate in England &Wales (at 126 prisoners per 100,000general population in 1998) was thehighest per capita rate in Western Europe(apart from Portugal (144)). This rate was,however, well below that found in the USA(668) and some Eastern Europeancountries (Russia (690) and the CzechRepublic (215)).
Note:All the tables in this Bulletin are downloadableas Excel spreadsheets from the RDS Websiteathttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/publf.htm.
2
Introduction
1. This bulletin brings together statistical information collected by the Home Office on criminal justiceas well as that collected by the Council of Europe. It reflects the co-operation that exists betweencountries both in the sharing of data but also in exploring the different definitions used withinstatistical collection systems. In making any comparisons it is necessary to be aware that such datawill be the outcome of different legal and administrative systems and may also be derived fromdifferent statistical data collection processes. Such differences are described in this bulletin and inthe European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics (Council of Europe, 1999). Inview of the many differences, comparisons are usually given here as a percentage change overtime rather than as an absolute change on the assumption that other factors will have remainedconstant over this period.
2. The majority of the data has been collected from official sources in other countries. However we arenot in a position to comment about either the accuracy or completeness of the figures provided.
3. In the tables covering crimes recorded by the police, information for England & Wales is by financialyear (i.e. 1998 covers the period from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999) reflecting the new methodintroduced in 1999 for the presentation of recorded crime data. In most other countries the basis isthe calendar year.
Crime
4. Although it is impossible to gauge the true extent of crime in any country, there are two mainmeasures available. The first is that of offences recorded by the police. The second measures crimefrom the results of victimisation surveys carried out on a sample of the public. For internationalcomparison purposes, results from the International Crime (Victim) Survey (a comparative researchexercise covering over 50 countries) can be examined.
Recorded crime
Total crimes recorded (Table 1)5. Although most countries collect information on the number of crimes recorded or reported by the
police, absolute comparisons of crime levels are often misleading. Recorded crime levels will beaffected by many factors including:
a) Different legal and criminal justice systems;
b) Rates at which crimes are reported to the police and recorded by them;
c) Differences in the point at which crime is measured. For some countries, this is the time at whichthe offence is reported to the police while for others recording does not take place until asuspect is identified and the papers are forwarded to the prosecutor;
d) Differences in the rules by which multiple offences are counted;
e) Differences in the list of offences that are included in the overall crime figures;
f) Changes in data quality.
6. During 1998, recorded crime rose on average by 4.7% in the 29 countries from which data wascollected. The slight fall in England & Wales (1%) was therefore below the average. The largest fallswere in Denmark (6%), Ireland (6%) and the USA (5%); the largest rises were in South Africa(37%), Northern Ireland (28%), Belgium (18%) and Hungary (17%).
3
7. Over the period 1994-98, the total number of crimes recorded by the police rose on average by 6%with falls in 11 of the 27 countries for which information was collected. The fall in England & Wales(13%) was one of the highest and similar to that in Ireland (15%), Scotland (14%) and the USA(11%). The highest rises were recorded in Hungary (54%) and South Africa (40%).
Table A Crimes(1) recorded by the police (percentage changes)
Country 1988-98 1994-98 1997-98
England & Wales(2) .. -13 -1
Northern Ireland(3) 38 .. 28
Scotland -6 -14 3
Austria 20 -5 0
Belgium(4) .. 36 (16) 18
Czech Republic .. 14 6
Denmark -7 -9 -6
Finland 15 0 3
France 14 9 2
Germany(5) .. -1 -2
Greece(6) 24 27 2
Hungary 224 54 17
Ireland (Eire) -4 -15 -6
Italy 28 12 -1
Luxembourg 22 -7 11
Netherlands 4 -8 0
Norway(7) 26 (15) 28 3
Poland 126 18 8
Portugal(8) .. 3 6
Russia 112 -2 8
Spain -6 2 -1
Sweden(9) 10 7 0
Switzerland(10) 15 6 -1
Australia(11) .. 14 5
Canada(12) 3 -7 -3
Japan(13) 24 14 7
New Zealand 22 3 -3
South Africa .. 40 37
U.S.A(14) -10 -11 -5
See footnotes for Table 1(15) 1991 - 1998.(16) 1995 - 1998.
Homicide (Tables 1.1 & 1.2)8. Since the definition of homicide is similar in most countries, absolute comparisons of rates are
possible. In 1998, England & Wales had one of the lowest homicide rates (1.43 per 100,000population) in Western Europe, similar to France (1.64), Italy (1.60), Portugal (1.52), Ireland (1.41)and Germany (1.19). In Eastern European countries, rates were higher (Poland (1.96), Hungary(2.85), and the Czech Republic (3.04)) with the highest recorded rates in Russia (20.20) and SouthAfrica (57.52).
9. For the cities, the average number of homicides over the period 1996-98 relative to population waslower in London (2.15 per 100,000 population) compared with many other Western European cities.Higher rates were found in Belfast (6.10) and Berlin (4.17). The highest rate was in Washington DC(59.90).
4
Table B Comparison of homicide(1) in selected cities
Number of homicides(1) Homicides(1) per 100,000 population of the city
City 1996 to 1998 average per year from 1996 to 1998
London 488 2.15
Belfast(2) 54 6.10
Edinburgh 24 1.78
Vienna 87 1.83
Brussels 59 1.47
Prague 119 3.28
Copenhagen(8) 66 4.56
Helsinki 42 2.65
Paris 159 2.52
Berlin(3) 431 4.17
Athens 46 1.32
Budapest 159 2.82
Dublin 71 2.23
Rome 131 1.51
Luxembourg Ville .. ..
Amsterdam 171 (10) 7.90 (10)
Oslo 29 1.93
Warsaw(4) 277 5.67
Lisbon 146 2.65
Moscow(4) 4,201 17.85
Madrid 269 3.12
Stockholm(5) 52 2.67
Geneva 13 1.08
Canberra 6 0.64
Ottawa(6) 24 1.02
Tokyo(4) 380 1.07
Wellington 10 2.10
Pretoria(7) 1,512 (9) 41.12 (9)
Washington DC 958 59.90
See footnotes for Table 1.2(9) 1995 - 1997.(10) 1994 - 1996.
Violent crime (Table 1.3)10. In 1998, violent crime recorded by the police rose on average by 2% with falls in England & Wales
(6%), Russia (22%), Ireland (17%), Portugal (8%), USA (6%), Denmark (1%) and Canada (1%). Thelargest rises were in Northern Ireland (21%), Italy (11%), Luxembourg (11), Scotland (9%),Switzerland (8%) and Australia (8%).
11. For the period 1994-98, the rise was 9% in England & Wales.
Domestic burglary (Table 1.4)12. In 1998, domestic burglaries fell in England & Wales by 6% compared with an average fall of 1% in
the countries covered. The largest falls were in Norway and Portugal (both 11%). Burglaries rose in10 countries with the highest rises in Northern Ireland (8%) and Japan (7%).
13. Over the period 1994-98, England & Wales with Scotland recorded the highest fall (28%) of all thecountries considered.
5
Theft of a motor vehicle (Table 1.5)14. In 1998, thefts of a motor vehicle recorded by the police fell by 2% in England & Wales compared
with an average rise of 3% for all countries covered. The largest falls were in Germany (15%) andthe USA (8%) while the highest rises were in Northern Ireland and Finland (both 20%).
15. Over the period 1994-98, England & Wales recorded the third highest fall (25%) after Germany(40%) and Scotland (32%). The largest rises were in Hungary (52%) and Portugal (47%).
Drug Trafficking (Table 1.6)16. In 1998, drug trafficking offences recorded by the police rose on average by 7% compared with a
9% fall in England & Wales; the fourth largest fall after Poland (32%) the Netherlands (14%) andSweden (11%). The highest rises were in Eastern Europe (Hungary (119%) and Czech Republic(30%)).
17. Over the period 1994-98, England & Wales recorded a rise of 16% while on average the figuredoubled (98% increase) for all countries considered. The largest rises were in Eastern Europe andthe largest falls were in Denmark (35%) and Sweden (38%).
Victimisation rates (Table 2)
18. An estimate of absolute levels of crime may be obtained from the International Crime (Victim)Survey. The latest survey which relates to victims’ reports of crimes in 19951 indicated that,compared with other industrialised countries, England & Wales had well above average levels ofboth property and contact crime (i.e. robbery, assault and sexual assault). The most recent reportalso indicates that comparisons between the trends in victimisation rates from 1988 to 1995 inEngland & Wales, Finland, Netherlands, Canada and the USA are similar to those in recordedcrime. Another survey is due to be conducted in 2000.
Sentencing
19. Information to provide international comparisons of sentencing is not regularly collected by eitherthe Home Office or any international bodies. Many countries do not collect sentencing data or areunable to provide it in a format that enables useful comparisons. A survey by the Council ofEurope2, however, provides information for 1995 on both the types of sentences imposed and thesentence lengths for specific offences. The survey collected data from 9 European countries(England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Portugal andSweden). Some of its findings are summarised here for three offences (assault, robbery and theft).In comparing sentence lengths, it should be noted that this relates to the sentence length imposedby the court and not the time actually served in custody which may depend upon the remissionpolicy in each country. It is hoped to repeat the survey in 2001.
Assault (Table 3.1)20. Countries show a wide variation in the type of sentences given for assault. In Scotland, Finland,
Germany and Portugal the fine was the most frequent sentence; suspended sentences were mostfrequently used in Northern Ireland and France; custodial sentences in Denmark and non-custodialin England & Wales. This variation is thought mainly to reflect the severity of assaults includedunder the definition of “assault” in each country, which may range from minor threats to seriousinjury.
21. Countries showing a high use of custody imposed shorter sentences. For example, althoughDenmark sentenced over 60% of those convicted to custody, 93% of these sentences were forunder for 6 months. Compared to other countries that sentenced a similar proportion to custody
1 The 1996 International Crime Victimisation Survey (Home Office Research Findings No. 57)by Pat Mayhew & Philip White.2 European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, 1999 (Council of Europe).
6
(about one quarter of those sentenced), England & Wales tended to impose longer sentences with45% for less than 6 months compared to 58% in France and 71% in Sweden.
Robbery (Table 3.2)22. For England & Wales and the majority of other countries covered, 60-70% of those convicted for
robbery were sentenced to custody (in Denmark it was higher at 79%). However, in Germany, it wasonly 39% with the majority of offenders sentenced to non-custodial or suspended sentences. TheCouncil of Europe’s experts have pointed out that possible double counting may have occurredwhere an offender received two or more sentences, thus distorting the German statistics. For thosecountries where suspended sentences were available, this was usually the second most frequentlyused sentence for robbery, while in all parts of the United Kingdom it was the non-custodialsentence.
23. England & Wales tended to impose longer sentences with only 23% of sentences for less than 12months compared with 33% in Scotland, 52% in Denmark and 58% in France. In Sweden, althoughthere was a similar proportion of short sentences, only 28% were for more than 2 years compared to56% in England & Wales. Portugal and Germany also showed high proportions of longer sentenceswith 79% and 63% respectively over 2 years.
Theft (Table 3.3)24. All parts of the United Kingdom showed a higher use of custody for those sentenced for theft
offences (18-27%) to other countries except for Portugal (40%). Elsewhere about 10% weresentenced to custody with the majority fined. For England & Wales, this difference may reflect thehigh proportion of theft offenders who were cautioned by the police rather than taken to court.
25. For the majority of offenders sentenced to custody, the sentence lengths were under 6 months withthe exception of Portugal (5%) and Germany (26%). However again England & Wales imposedlonger sentences with 21% over 1 year compared with France (14%), Denmark (2%) and Sweden(9%).
Prison population (Table 4)
26. The prison population in a country reflects:
a) The crime rate;
b) The extent to which crimes were cleared up;
c) The extent to which the accused were remanded in custody;
d) The length of pre-trial detention;
e) The extent to which courts impose custodial sentences;
f) The length of custodial sentences (more precisely, the length of time served); and
g) The extent to which custodial sentences were suspended.
27. Each year the Council of Europe collects data from its Member states on the characteristics of theirprison population on 1 September and the Home Office supplements this data with that collectedfrom other countries.
28. England & Wales (at 126 prisoners per 100,000 general population in 1998) and Scotland (117) hadthe highest per capita rates in Western Europe, apart from Portugal (144). The high rates in theUnited Kingdom and Portugal reflect, in part, the longer sentences imposed in these countries.
7
(England & Wales are at about midpoint in the World Prison Population List3). Of the countriesconsidered in this Bulletin, the prison population rate in England & Wales is exceeded not only byPortugal but also by Hungary (140), New Zealand (143), Poland (153), the Czech Republic (215),South Africa (327) and by the two countries with the highest rates in the world, the USA (668) andRussia (690). The lowest rates in the countries considered here are to be found in Scandinavia (55-63 in all four countries) and Japan (42).
29. Over the period 1994-98, the prison population fell in 10 of the countries considered with the largestfalls in Northern Ireland (21%), Finland (15%) and Sweden (15%). The increase in England andWales (33%) was similar to some Western European countries (Ireland (28%), Netherlands (34%)and Portugal (43%)) but above that in Australia (19%), New Zealand (23%), USA (22%) and SouthAfrica (28%).
Table C Prison population(1) (percentage changes and rates)
rate(15) per
100,000 population
Country 1988-98 1994-98 1997-98 1998
England & Wales(2)(3) 31 33 6 126
Northern Ireland(4) -20 -21 -4 91
Scotland(5) 15 8 -1 117
Austria(2) 5 1 -1 85
Belgium(5) 21 5 -8 77
Czech Republic(6) -7 18 2 215
Denmark -1 -5 5 63
Finland(7) -30 -15 -5 55
France(8) 15 0 -2 89
Germany(9) .. 16 4 95
Greece 71 22 28 68
Hungary(6) -31 9 7 142
Ireland (Eire)(10) 34 28 8 71
Italy 44 -4 -1 87
Luxembourg 5 -13 -12 91
Netherlands(11) 87 34 -1 75
Norway(5) 17 -8 -3 56
Poland -22 -4 3 153
Portugal 75 43 1 144
Russia(6) 44 (16) 10 0 690
Spain(6) 53 -6 4 111
Sweden -3 -15 1 60
Switzerland 21 -4 -6 79
Australia(5) 55 19 4 98
Canada(12) 24 1 -3 109
Japan -3 16 4 42
New Zealand(13) 58 23 6 143
South Africa(5) 27 28 5 327
U.S.A.(14) 90 22 4 668
See footnotes for Table 4.(15) Based on estimates of national population.(16) 1989 - 1998.
3 World Prison Population List (Home Office Research Findings No. 88) by Roy Walmsley.
(1) More serious offences. In many countries defined as against the 'penal code' or'criminal code' and excludes less serious crimes (misdemeanours). The range ofoffences covered differ between each country and comparisons based uponabsolute figures are therefore misleading.
(2) By financial year from 1994 (e.g. 1994 = 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995); 1998figure is an estimate due to a change in the counting rules. England & Wales
(3) By financial year from 1997 (e.g. 1997 = 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998). NorthernIreland
(4) New collection system introduced in 1994, however not all police forces submittedreturns in 1994. Data may only be regarded as complete from 1995 onwards.Belgium
(5) Includes former East Germany from 1992 but only part of East Germany in 1991.Germany
(6) Includes misdemeanours and traffic offences. Greece
(7) From 1988 to 1990, crimes investigated by the police; from 1991, crimes recordedby the police. Norway
(8) New unified collection system introduced in 1993 covering the three police forces.From 1995, other police functions e.g. gambling, economic activities, customs andcounty public finance are included. Portugal
(9) Includes attempts, preparation and conspiracy to commit an offence. Sweden
(10) Figures include selected penal offences and all drugs offences. Penal codeoffences are estimated to be approximately two-thirds of all offences which alsoinclude less serious offences such as shop-lifting, bicycle theft and use of cars for"joyriding". Switzerland
(11) Data for selected violent and property crimes. By financial year until 1992 andcalendar year from 1993 onwards. Australia
(12) Includes Criminal Code incidents (violent, property and other crimes within theCriminal Code - e.g. prostitution, arson, mischief). Does not include drugs, traffic,provincial or municipal bylaw violations. Canada
(13) Excludes traffic, professional negligence and offences against special penal codessuch as drugs, firearms and sword control offences. Japan
(14) FBI Uniform Crime Index covering murder and non-negligent manslaughter,manslaughter by negligence, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,larceny-theft, and theft of motor vehicles but excludes arson and drugs offences.USA
Source: Statistical contacts in each country.
10
11
Table 1.1 Crimes(1) recorded by the police: Homicide(2)
Rate per
% change % change 100,000 population
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994-98 1997-98 1998
(1) Definitions of offences vary between countries both due to legal differences and statistical recording methods;comparisons may be affected by these differences.
(2) Intentional killing of a person excluding attempts: murder, manslaughter (excluding death by dangerous driving),euthanasia and infanticide; excluding abortion and help with suicide.
(3) By financial year from 1997 (e.g. 1997 = 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998).(4) Including homicides recorded by the ZERV (Central Group for the investigation of crime associated with the government
and reunification), which were committed in former East Germany or at the border before reunification of the country.(5) Excluding euthanasia.(6) Includes attempts.(7) Includes all deaths initially reported as homicide to the police. Figures from 1997 onwards are not comparable with
previous years due to a change in statistical routines.(8) Includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide.(9) 1994 - 1996.(10) In 1996.(11) Includes all deaths initially reported as homicide to the police.
Source: Statistical contacts in each country.
12
Table 1.2 Comparison of homicide(1) in selected cities
Number of homicides(1) Homicides(1) per 100,000 population of the city
Washington DC 472 482 443 454 399 360 397 301 260 77.80 80.60 75.20 78.50 70.00 64.98 73.11 56.89 49.15
13
(1) Intentional killing of a person excluding attempts: murder, manslaughter (excludingdeath by dangerous driving), euthanasia and infanticide; excluding abortion andhelp with suicide.
(2) By financial year from 1996 (e.g. 1996 = 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997).
(3) Including homicides recorded by the ZERV (Central Group for the investigation ofcrime associated with the government and reunification), which were committed informer East Germany or at the border before reunification of the country.
(4) Including attempts.
(5) Includes all deaths initially reported as homicide to the police. 1997 figures are notcomparable with previous years due to a change in statistical routines.
(6) Census metropolitan area. Includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
(7) Including rural areas.
(8) Includes all deaths initially reported as homicide to the police.
Source: Statistical contacts in each country.
14
Table 1.3 Crimes(1) recorded by the police: Violent crime(2)
% change % change
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994-98 1997-98
England & Wales(3) 303,742 319,675 348,032 352,873 331,843 9 -6
(1) Definitions of offences vary between countries both due to legal differences and statistical recording methods;comparisons may be affected by these differences.
(2) Violence against the person, robbery and sexual offences.(3) By financial year (e.g. 1994 = 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995).(4) By financial year from 1997 (e.g. 1997 = 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998).(5) Excludes robbery.(6) 1998 figures are not comparable with previous years due to a change in the law.(7) Includes homicide, other violence against the person, intimidation, abduction and false imprisonment, sexual offences,
robbery and aggravated burglary.(8) Includes homicide, injuries, sexual assault, robbery, extortion and kidnapping.(9) Includes homicide, murder, rebellion, intimidation, other violence against the person and sexual offences.(10) Includes homicide, rape, fighting and battery, causing bodily injury and robbery.(11) Violence against the person, aggravated assault and sexual offences only.(12) Includes attempts, preparation and conspiracy to commit an offence.(13) In 1994, only sexual assaults included. From 1995, all assaults included (murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, driving
causing death, sexual assault, kidnapping and abduction, robbery, blackmail and extortion).(14) Includes homicide, attempted murder, sexual and non-sexual assault, other sexual offences, abduction and robbery.(15) 1994 - 1996.(16) 1994 - 1997.(17) 1995 - 1998.(18) 1996 - 1997.
Source: Statistical contacts in each country.
15
Table 1.4 Crimes(1) recorded by the police: Domestic burglary(2)
% change % change
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994-98 1997-98
England & Wales(3) 661,194 638,631 581,985 501,593 472,960 -28 -6
(1) Definitions of offences vary between countries both due to legal differences and statistical recording methods;comparisons may be affected by these differences.
(2) Gaining access to a dwelling by the use of force to steal goods.
(3) By financial year (e.g. 1994 = 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995).
(4) By financial year from 1997 (e.g. 1997 = 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998).
(5) Until 1997 includes burglary in non-domestic premises (e.g. shop, garage, hotel).
(6) Includes burglary in non-domestic premises (e.g. shop, garage, hotel).
(7) Includes burglary from garrets and basements in blocks of flats.
(8) Includes attempts, preparation and conspiracy to commit an offence.
(9) Includes attempts.
(10) 1994 - 1996.
(11) 1994 - 1997.
(12) 1996 - 1997.Source: Statistical contacts in each country.
16
Table 1.5 Crimes(1) recorded by the police: Theft of a motor vehicle(2)
% change % change
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994-98 1997-98
England & Wales(3) 524,094 513,927 466,783 400,524 390,891 -25 -2
(1) Definitions of offences vary between countries both due to legal differences and statistical recording methods;comparisons may be affected by these differences.
(2) All land vehicles with an engine that run on the road which are used to carry people (including cars, motor cycles, buses,lorries, construction and agricultural vehicles, etc.).
(3) By financial year (e.g. 1994 = 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995).
(4) By financial year from 1997 (e.g. 1997 = 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998).
(5) Includes attempts.
(6) Includes boats until 1996.
(7) Cars only.
(8) Includes attempts, preparation and conspiracy to commit an offence.
(1) Definitions of offences vary between countries both due to legal differences and statistical recording methods;comparisons may be affected by these differences.
(2) Illegal importing, exporting, supplying, transportation, etc. of narcotic drugs.
(3) By financial year from 1997 (e.g. 1997 = 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998).
(4) Number of people prosecuted.
(5) All drugs offences.
(6) Importation only in 1994.
(7) Includes attempts, preparation and conspiracy to commit an offence.
(8) By financial year (e.g. 1994 = 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994).
(3) Includes prisoners held in police cells until 1995.
(4) Annual averages in 1988, 1989 and 1991.
(5) Average daily population.
(6) At 31 December.
(7) At 1 January.
(8) Metropolitan and overseas departments.
(9) 1988 to 1991 includes only Western part of Germany; from 1993 former EastGermany included.
(10) Average daily population in 1990.
(11) At 30 September.
(12) Annual average by financial year (1 April - 31 March).
(13) Annual averages.
(14) At 30 June.
Source: Statistical contacts in each country.
24
Notes
1. The Home Office has been collecting and publishing data from other countries on the number of crimesrecorded by the police and the prison population since 1993. The number of countries covered and thecomparability of the data received has improved since then through closer liaison with the officialsabroad. Although the information received is double-checked with the countries supplying the data, theHome Office cannot guarantee that the data presented is completely accurate or comparable.
2. The authors would like to thank the data suppliers in each country for their assistance in preparing thisBulletin.
3. The tables in this Bulletin are available as Excel spreadsheets from the RDS Website at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/publf.htm
Other RDS publications are also available at the URL above or by contacting:
Research Development & Statistics DirectorateMission Statement
RDS is part of the Home Office. The Home Office’s purpose is to build a safe, just and tolerant society inwhich the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced and theprotection and security of the public are maintained.
RDS are also part of the Government Statistical Service (GSS). One of the GSS’ aims is to informParliament and the citizen about the state of the nation and provide a window on the work and performanceof the government, allowing the impact of government policies and actions to be assessed.
Therefore:
Research Development & Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision takingand practice in support of the Home Office’s purpose and aims, to provide the public and
Parliament with the information necessary for informed debate and to publish the information forfuture use.